Republicans have been preparing for one kind of 2016 presidential race, but the contest that actually takes place might be something substantially different — a race few GOP candidates are fully prepared to run.
The campaign is changing. Republican strategists who have long anticipated a battle based on the economy are now confronting the possibility of a race in which national security plays an outsized, perhaps decisive, role. One simple fact explains the change: It’s a dangerous world.
“People see what’s going on with the Islamic State [of Iraq and Syria] in the Middle East, they see Iran potentially getting the bomb, there are big concerns about Russia,” says Andrew Smith, whose most recent Granite State Poll in New Hampshire found intense concern about national security issues. “We thought 2008 was going to be a foreign policy election until it became a domestic policy election.” A change of similar magnitude could happen in 2016.
Republicans generally enjoy an edge on the issue of national security. But the GOP field — mostly governors and first-term senators — does not have much hands-on experience with national security, while the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, served four years as secretary of state.
There’s no doubt the foreign policy credentials of some top Republican candidates are pretty thin. For example, the candidate of the moment, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, came to the governorship from his time as the Milwaukee County executive. Walker has accomplished big things as governor, but nothing that counts as foreign policy.
Asked at a forum last week about the threat posed by the Islamic State, Walker cited his experience as commander-in-chief of the Wisconsin National Guard. “On a fairly frequent basis, [the Guard adjutant general], along with members of the FBI, gives me and I presume other governors security threat assessments,” Walker said. “I see on an ongoing basis legitimate concerns about the threat to national security, state by state and across this country.”
One thing governors running for president probably shouldn’t do is cite command of their state’s National Guard as national security experience.
The other governors in the Republican field — Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal — are in pretty much the same boat. Three of the four senators in the race — Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul — do not have extensive national security experience, although Rubio has worked hard to establish some credentials. A fourth senator, Rick Santorum, spent a lot of time on foreign policy a decade ago and stressed it during his 2012 presidential run. Other possible candidates — a doctor, Ben Carson, and a former tech executive, Carly Fiorina — round out the impression that the GOP field is not a particularly heavy-hitting foreign policy crowd.
Republicans know this. That is why John Bolton, the former United Nations ambassador, and Sen. Lindsey Graham are considering running. It’s not that they think they can win; they just want the race, and at least the early debates, to include more experienced voices on national security.
The candidates are hiring advisers and traveling abroad to deepen their understanding of foreign policy issues. Walker goes to London this week, while Christie allowed his recent trip there to be overcome by negative coverage of his views on vaccines. Jindal, Perry, and Rubio have also gone to England in the last year or so, while others have headed to Israel.
Meanwhile, there’s no doubt Republican voters see foreign policy as a big part of the race. In Andrew Smith’s Granite State Poll, 20 percent of New Hampshire Republicans cited foreign policy as the most important factor in deciding their presidential primary vote. That’s less than the number who cited jobs and the economy, but more than viewed healthcare, immigration, the budget, taxes, social issues or energy as the most important issue. Likewise, New Hampshire Democrats rated foreign policy as a more urgent matter than the environment, education, social issues, income inequality and energy.
Given Clinton’s experience, what do Republicans do? Frame the issue their way. “I think voters will be looking for clarity and strength versus experience in foreign policy,” says Stuart Stevens, who was Mitt Romney’s top strategist in 2012. “There’s no question the confused foreign policy of the Obama administration has made the world more dangerous.”
“Experience lends credibility to your views, but common sense and some smarts allow all candidates the opportunity to address [national security] concerns,” says David Carney, a veteran GOP strategist. “It’s not like the current foreign policy experts in government have done a top-notch job.”
As the race continues to change, look for Republicans to define the national security issue not as a contest of experience versus inexperience but of vision versus lack of vision. Yes, Hillary Clinton has tons of experience, they’ll say — but it’s experience being wrong. What good is that?
